logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.07.23 2014가단18912
공탁금출급권자확인
Text

1. F is about KRW 18,00,000, out of KRW 20,712,000 deposited by the Seoul Western District Court No. 1207 on April 8, 2014 as Seoul Western District Court Decision 20,712,000.

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. The following facts are deemed to have been led to the confession by the same Defendants pursuant to Article 150(1) of the Civil Procedure Act between the Plaintiff, Defendant B, and C. It may be acknowledged that there is no dispute between the Plaintiff, Defendant D, and E, or that the entire purport of the pleadings is added to the statements in the evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, and 9.

On May 27, 2013, Defendant B leased 30,000,000 won (hereinafter “instant lease deposit”) the first floor store among G buildings owned by the F and operated the restaurant “H”.

B. On October 29, 2013, the Plaintiff lent KRW 18,000,00 to I. On November 29, 2013, Defendant B entered into a contract with F to transfer KRW 18,000,000 out of the refund claim of the instant lease deposit against F to the Plaintiff on November 27, 2013 in order to secure the joint and several guarantee of the Plaintiff’s loan obligation, and notified the Plaintiff on the same day.

C. around October 7, 2013, Defendant E and D had a claim of KRW 50,00,000 against Defendant B. Based on the above claim, Defendant E and D filed an application for provisional attachment of the claim to return the lease deposit of this case with Seoul Western District Court 2013Kadan10835, and served the F on December 2, 2013.

Defendant C requested the Seoul Western District Court 2013TTT17983 to seize and collect the claim against Defendant C with the claim amounting to KRW 10,000,000,000. The above decision was served on F on December 23, 2013.

E. On April 8, 2014, F deposited KRW 20,712,00 after deducting the overdue rent, etc. from the instant lease deposit by the Seoul Western District Court No. 1207, 2014 (hereinafter “instant deposit”) on the grounds that multiple transfers, seizure, etc. of credit are concurrent and the creditor cannot be known.

F. The defendant B shall not be deemed to have been a party.

arrow